Chicago v. President

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtPer CURIAM
Citation84 Ill. 643,1876 WL 14037
Decision Date31 January 1877
PartiesCHICAGO, PEKIN AND SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD CO.v.PRESIDENT AND TRUSTEES OF TOWN OF MARSEILLES.

84 Ill. 643
1876 WL 14037 (Ill.)

CHICAGO, PEKIN AND SOUTHWESTERN RAILROAD CO.
v.
PRESIDENT AND TRUSTEES OF TOWN OF MARSEILLES.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

January Term, 1877.


RAILWAY COMPANY-- power to purchase shares of its own stock.

Upon a rehearing in this case, the rule as laid down in the original opinion reported in this volume, page 145, is reaffirmed in the following additional opinion:

[84 Ill. 644]

Per CURIAM:

On considering the petition heretofore filed, we granted a rehearing to further consider the question, whether the railroad company had the power to contract for and purchase shares of stock of its own company. We have again fully examined the question, and, after considering the arguments and authorities bearing on the question, we will proceed to announce our conclusions thus reached.

The rule is familiar, and is not contested, that such bodies can only exercise such powers as may be conferred by the legislative body creating them, either in express terms or by necessary implication; and the implied powers are presumed to exist to enable such bodies to carry out the express powers granted, and to accomplish the purposes of their creation. Such being the rule, the question arises, whether this corporate body might make such a purchase, or is it outside of, and beyond the limit of its power?

Appellant has referred us to a number of cases in our own court, in which it has been held that such organizations have no power to release subscribers for their stock from paying therefor and from their subscriptions; that, when such subscriptions are intended to be fictitious or the subscribers are released from payment, it operates as a wrong, if not a fraud, on the other subscribers for stock in the same company. But here, the stock had been subscribed, paid for, and certificates thereof issued to, and they were owned and held by, the village at the time this contract was entered into and executed. So, the question is not, whether appellant may release the village from paying for and receiving shares subscribed for, but whether appellant has power to purchase shares of its own stock, paid for, issued to and held by the village.

In the case of Taylor v. Miami Exportation Co. 6 Ohio, (Hammond's R.) 83, it was held that a banking corporation might lawfully receive shares of its own stock from a solvent debtor in discharge of his indebtedness. The court went further, and held that, where a large number of shares had been issued to enable the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • Grace Sec. Corp. v. Roberts
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • June 16, 1932
    ...Bovee v. Boyle, 25 Colo. App. 165, 136 P. 467; Hall v. Hardaker, 61 Fla. 267, 55 So. 977; Chicago, P. & S. W. R. R. Co. v Marseilles, 84 Ill. 643. 7. Section 3792 was amended by Acts 1928, p. 1168, a 456, § 2, in particulars material to the question here under consideration. 8. It seems to ......
  • Grace Securities v. Roberts
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • June 16, 1932
    ...this connection, Bovee Boyle, 25 Colo.App. 165, 136 Pac. 467; Hall Hardaker, 61 Fla. 267, 55 So. 977; Chicago, etc., R.R. Co. Marseilles, 84 Ill. 643. 6. Section 3792 was amended by Acts 1928, page 1158, c. 456, section 2, in particulars material to the question here under consideration. 7.......
  • Mannington v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • June 13, 1910
    ...may be exercised by the board of directors. Lumber Co. v. Telephone Co., 127 Iowa, 350, 101 N.W. 742; Chicago, etc., R.R. v. Marseilles, 84 Ill. 643; First Nat. Bank v. Salem Capital Flour-Mills Co. (C.C.) 39 F. 89, 96. This case, however, rests, not on an exception to a general rule, but o......
  • Copper Belle Mining Co. v. Costello, Civil 1021
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • March 27, 1908
    ...v. Salem Co. (C.C.), 39 F. 89; New England Co. v. Abbot, 162 Mass. 148, 38 N.E. 432, 27 L.R.A. 271; Chicago etc. R.R. Co. v. Marseilles, 84 Ill. 643; Farmers' Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 18 Vt. 131; Iowa Lumber Co. v. Foster, 49 Iowa 25, 31 Am. Rep. 140; Shoemaker v. Washburn Lumber Co.,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • Grace Sec. Corp. v. Roberts
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • June 16, 1932
    ...Bovee v. Boyle, 25 Colo. App. 165, 136 P. 467; Hall v. Hardaker, 61 Fla. 267, 55 So. 977; Chicago, P. & S. W. R. R. Co. v Marseilles, 84 Ill. 643. 7. Section 3792 was amended by Acts 1928, p. 1168, a 456, § 2, in particulars material to the question here under consideration. 8. It seems to ......
  • Grace Securities v. Roberts
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • June 16, 1932
    ...this connection, Bovee Boyle, 25 Colo.App. 165, 136 Pac. 467; Hall Hardaker, 61 Fla. 267, 55 So. 977; Chicago, etc., R.R. Co. Marseilles, 84 Ill. 643. 6. Section 3792 was amended by Acts 1928, page 1158, c. 456, section 2, in particulars material to the question here under consideration. 7.......
  • Mannington v. Hocking Valley Ry. Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio
    • June 13, 1910
    ...may be exercised by the board of directors. Lumber Co. v. Telephone Co., 127 Iowa, 350, 101 N.W. 742; Chicago, etc., R.R. v. Marseilles, 84 Ill. 643; First Nat. Bank v. Salem Capital Flour-Mills Co. (C.C.) 39 F. 89, 96. This case, however, rests, not on an exception to a general rule, but o......
  • Copper Belle Mining Co. v. Costello, Civil 1021
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • March 27, 1908
    ...v. Salem Co. (C.C.), 39 F. 89; New England Co. v. Abbot, 162 Mass. 148, 38 N.E. 432, 27 L.R.A. 271; Chicago etc. R.R. Co. v. Marseilles, 84 Ill. 643; Farmers' Bank v. Champlain Transp. Co., 18 Vt. 131; Iowa Lumber Co. v. Foster, 49 Iowa 25, 31 Am. Rep. 140; Shoemaker v. Washburn Lumber Co.,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT